MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009005874 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v36i3.1320

Language Teachers' Digital Mindsets: Links Between Everyday Use and Professional Use of Technology

2019· article· en· W3009005874 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Sofia Cementina

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityMcMaster University
KeywordsAffordanceMindsetPedagogyTechnology integrationPsychologyEducational technologyLanguage educationSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovations in digital technologies have the potential to alter how people think, learn, communicate, and collaborate with others. Whereas changes in technology and its affordances have transformed social contexts and learning environments, instructors’ beliefs about digital technologies and pedagogy can affect technology integration behaviours and language teaching practices. This study used a two-phase approach to gain insights into teachers’ digital mindsets and their personal and professional use of technology. In total, 50 teachers were surveyed regarding their technological beliefs and practices, and, among them, three second language teachers were selected and interviewed. Results illustrate that participants recognized and embraced the affordances of digital technologies in their own lives, yet they failed to see their significance in language teaching and learning. Their attitudes and intentions associated with technology uses were compartmentalized; while teachers’ everyday practices were more digital and socially mediated, they struggled to adopt more technology-based teaching practices. Participants identified the lack of training in technology integration in language teaching hindered their use of digital resources, but findings indicate that the teachers’ reluctance to explore emerging technologies and their own technological beliefs and experiences influenced their mindset and teaching practices. Implications and recommendations for second language instruction are discussed.
 Les innovations de la technologie numérique ont le potentiel de modifier nos manières de penser, d’apprendre, de communiquer et de collaborer. Or, même si l’évolution technologique et ses affordances, ou potentialités, ont transformé les contextes sociaux et les milieux d’apprentissage, les croyances des professeurs concernant les technologies et la pédagogie numériques peuvent néanmoins influer sur les comportements relatifs à l’intégration des technologies aux pratiques liées à l’enseignement des langues. La présente étude est le compte rendu d’une approche en deux étapes adoptée afin de permettre de mieux comprendre la mentalité des professeurs face au numérique ainsi que leurs utilisations personnelles et professionnelles de la technologie. En tout, 50 professeurs ont fait l’objet d’un sondage concernant leurs croyances et leurs pratiques technologiques, y compris trois professeurs de langue seconde qui ont été sélectionnés pour une entrevue. Les résultats démontrent que même s’ils reconnaissent et recourent aux affordances des technologies numériques dans leur vie personnelle, les participantes et participants n’en reconnaissent point l’importance pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des langues. Leurs attitudes et intentions en lien avec les utilisations de la technologie étaient compartimentées : même si leurs pratiques quotidiennes étaient plus numériques et paissaient davantage par les médias sociaux, les professeurs avaient du mal à adopter des pratiques pédagogiques davantage fondées sur la technologie. Les participantes et participants ont précisé que le manque de formations dans le domaine de l’intégration de la technologie dans l’enseignement des langues les empêchait d’utiliser les ressources numériques, mais les constatations de l’enquête indiquent toutefois que leur répugnance à explorer les nouvelles technologies ainsi que leurs croyances et expériences technologiques personnelles avaient une influence sur leur mentalité et leurs pratiques pédagogiques. L’étude renferme une discussion des implications de cet état de fait et offre des recommandations pour l’enseignement d’une langue seconde.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTESL Canada JournalSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207